Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited “around 25” men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are “today are on the front lines in Adjabiya”.

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but added that the “members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader”.

His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad’s president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, “including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries”.

The fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi might see the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorist groups filling up the void, US analysts have said.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) that was branded by the US as a terrorist organisation in May 2010 has been operating from its base in Algeria, and has now extended its reach to the borders of Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Chad and Libya, Fox News reports.

Gaddafi had earlier not only provided intelligence on the terrorists’ operations to the US, but has also publicly spoken out against them.

Branding the group members as ‘bad Muslims’, Gaddafi said: “The security forces found a mosque in al-Zawiya. In a mosque! Weapons, alcohol, and their corpses – all mixed up together.”

Now that the Libyan dictator has gone into hiding, many analysts have raised concerns whether southern Libya will become a magnet for jihadist groups.

Cully Stimson, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who is now a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the al-Qaeda affiliate might turn out to be an adaptive enemy.

“AQIM has found their niche. They are going to exploit that to the degree they can. They have the ability in the strategic interest in moving and being adaptable. One of the most high-profile cases was a British hostage Edwin Dyer, who was murdered after lengthy negotiations for his release stalled,” Stimson added.

If post-Gaddafi Libya turns into an al Qaeda haven on the very doorsteps of Europe, we may have traded one insane dictator for a far more serious problem.

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

I thought I’d help out by posting for you the only paragraph you left out of your quote from the ANI piece:

US Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz has described the AQIM as a “danger to the region”.

Insisting that Gaddafi might be overplaying the threat for selfish reasons, Cretz said: “It’s clearly a card that he thinks he might be able to get some benefit of. It’s patently ridiculous. But do we have concerns about AQIM? Certainly, we do.”

This is a genuine concern, and a potential problem.

But making the case with an ANI story quoting a low-level Bush DoD staffer who was tossed out for making some impolitic remarks and was forced to publicly apologize and now works for the right-wing “think tank,” Heritage Foundation, may not be as compelling as you hoped.

Especially when the only graph you cut quotes the US ambassador, (a Bush nominee, incidentally) — who many might consider the superior source — to the effect that Gaddafi may be the source of at least some of these claims.

First the thought: “Al Qaeda in Iraq” is not the same organization that committed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Fighting the military forces of an occupation is not the same thing as committing terrorist attacks against civilians on their home soil.

Second thought: How long did it take after 1945 before we were arming German WWII veterans against the Soviet threat? A very imperfect analogy, to be sure, but the point is that allegiance is mutable.

I remain skeptical of the long term outcome in Libya, but this particular line of criticisms smacks of playing the AQ bogeyman.

I can of course see why it’s very important to try and paint the rebels as Al Qaeda, by the way.

Those rebels — the ones you dismissed — have retaken Ajdabiyah and apparently Breg (Burayqah, pick a spelling, any spelling) which two of not all that many towns between them and western Libya.

It has obviously dawned on the right wing echo chamber that Obama might actually pull this off. So, quick! Find a way to make it a bad thing. Because the alternative is just so dangerous, eh, Doug? A competent, capable, effective liberal president?

So Doug are you officially a pass-though for boilerplate churned out by right wing think tanks now? Maybe you should just share your admin rights on OTB with them, it would give you time for an extra cup of coffee or two in the morning.

[…] Indeed, on that score, this is not about whether or not intervention was necessary in Libya in order to prevent a mass slaughter of civilians, or whether it is in America’s interests for Gaddafi to be removed from power. (As our previous posts make clear, we wholeheartedly agree that the “mad dog of Africa,” as President Reagan used to call Gaddafi, needs to go, indeed such is expressly in our national interests.) He does, after all, have the blood of hundreds of American lives on his hands, (e.g., Pan Am flight 103 terrorist attack as well as Berlin Disco bombing in the 80′s and countless other covert terrorist acts around the world). And this is so regardless of whether or not the rebels are connected to Al Quaeda, a very serious and separate question that must definitively be answered before we allow any other regime to establish itself and/or we decide to directly arm the rebels with American arms, indeed, establishment of just another terrorist regime in Gaddafi’s place wouldn’t be worth the blood of even one American soldier, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars this attack is costing the U.S. taxpayers, see here and here. (For reports upon possible Al Quaeda and terrorist connections of the Libyan ‘rebels’ click here and here). […]

[…] length of the conflict. It is worth pointing out the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda are also allied with the rebels the US is supporting. Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of […]